Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - RESO 91 147 NEGDEC 91 001 (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Item to be D1 CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: September 24, 1991 SUBJECT: Resolution No. 91-147, a resolution certifying Negative Declaration No. 91-001, for the City acquisition of an existing three story office building commonly known as the Valencia National Bank building, located at 23920.Valencia Boulevard. DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND: On August 13, 1991, the City Manager conducted a meeting with -the City Council to discuss the acquisition of the Valencia National Bank building by the City. At this meeting, the City Council authorized the -City Manager to purchase the building. The City intends. to use the building as the temporary City Hall until such time a new City Hall and Civic Center complex are completed and ready to occupy. Several years will be required to complete plans and construct the new Civic Center Complex. The Community Development Department has prepared a proposed- Negative Declaration for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements. A notice of environmental assessment was posted and the proposed Negative Declaration was made available to the public for a 30 day review period starting an August 19, 1991. The notice of environmental assessment was placed in the newspaper on August 20, 1991, and a Notice of Preparation for a Draft Negative Declaration was sent to the County Clerk on August 21, 1991, allowing for a 30 day public review period prior to the City Council meeting of September 24, 1991. The Initial Study prepared for this item is on file for public review in'the City Clerk's office. No correspondence regarding the project has been received from any agency or from the public. RECOMMENDATION• Certify proposed Negative Declaration No. 91-001. ATTACHMENTS: Adopted:9 9/ BCA:151 Agendalten—M RESOLUTION NO -91-147 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91-001 FOR THE CITY PURCHASE OF THE VALENCIA NATIONAL BANE BUILDING AT 23920 VALENCIA BOULEVARD, SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. On August 13, 1991, the City Manager met in closed session with the City Council to discuss the potential acquisition of the Valencia National Bank building by the City of Santa Clarita. b. On August 13, 1991; the City Council authorized the City Manager to pursue negotiation for the purchase of the Valencia National Bank building. C. The City intends to use the Valencia National Bank building as the temporary City Hall until such time a new City Hall and Civic Center complex are completed and ready for occupancy. d. This purchase is determined to be a project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been reviewed pursuant to its provisions. The Initial Study prepared for the project has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration is proposed. The Initial Study further identified that the project will not impact resources protected:by the California Department of Fish and Game and that a finding of de minimus impact on such resources is appropriate. SECTION 2. Based upon, the above findings of fact and upon studies and investigations made on behalf of the City Council, the City Council further finds as follows: a. At its meeting of September 24, 1991, the City Council considered the staff report and all corresponding environmental documents including the Negative Declaration and the Initial Study for the project. b. Based on the Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to adversely effect the environment or resources under the protection of the California Department of Fish and Game, and no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the purchase of the Valencia National Bank building by the City of Santa Clarita. C. A proposed Negative Declaration was prepared for the project based on the Initial Study findings and the determination that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the Environment. d. A notice of environmental assessment was posted and advertised, and the proposed Negative Declaration was made available for a 30 dam review period in compliance with CEQA. e. No correspondence regarding the project has been received from any agency, or from the public, during the 30 day review period. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines that; a. The project is compatible with existing development in the area, consistent with the City's General Plan, and complies with the uses allowed in the C-3 (Unlimited Commercial).zone. b. The project will not have a significant impact on the environment or on resources under°the protection of the California Department of Fish and Game. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by. the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California as follows: a. The City Council hereby certifies the Negative Declaration prepared for the project. b. The City Council hereby approves that a final determination of Negative Declaration be issued. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1991. Carl Boyer, Mayor ATTEST: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 1991 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk BCA:152 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N [X] Proposed [ ] Final APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita TYPE OF PERMIT: None FILE NO.: ND 91-001 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT:. 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Purchase of an existing 46 foot high three story office building, commonly known as the "Valencia Bank Building," with 74,325 square feet of floor area and a 268 space landscaped parking lot on 3.12 acres of land, in C-3 Unlimited Commercial Zone. .......... .................................................. ...........� It -is the determination of the: [X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development upon review that the.project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Mitigation measures Form completed by: [ ] are attached [X] are not attached Bruce Abbott Associate Planner (Name and Title) Date of Public Notice: Aueust 19. 1991 [X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting notice. (j Written notice. BCA:130 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CASE NO: NO 91-001 Case Planner: Bruce Abbott Project.Location: 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. California Project Description and Setting: Purchase of an existing 46 -foot high three story office building with 74.325 square feet of floor area, and's 268 -space landscaped parking lot on 3.12 acres of land. General Plan Designation CTC, Commercial Town Center Zoning: C-3. Unlimited Commercial Zone Applicant: City of Santa Clarita Environmental Constraint Areas: None ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [ I [ I [XI YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .................. [ ] [ ] [XI b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ............... [ I I I IXI C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ........................... [ I I I [Xl d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? .................................. [ I [ ] [Xl e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ ] I I IXI f. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ................................... [ I [ I IXI g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ................................. [ l [ l [XI h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [ I [ I [XI - 2 - YES NAYSE NO i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? ....................... [ ] [ I [XI j. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [ I [ ] [XI k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ I [XI 1. Other? [ I [ I [XI 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? .................... [ ] [ 1 [XI b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ] [ I [XI C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? .............. [ ] [ ] [X] d. Other? [ I [ I 1X1 3. Yater. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ............................ [ 7 [ l [XI b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? .............................. [ I [ 1 [XI C. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ......................... [ 1 [ ] [XI d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ I [ I [XI e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ..................... [ 1 [ 1 [XI f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............ [.1 [ I [XI g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ [ l [ l [XI Imm S YES MAYBE NO h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? .......... [ ] [ ] [X] i. Other?, [ ] [ J [X] 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Reduction of the numbers of any .unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [ ] [ J [X] C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? ........... [ j [ j [X] d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ...................................... [ 1 [ J [X) 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and insects or microfauna)? .................... [ ] [ J [X] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [ J [X] C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, orresultin a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ] [ ] [X] d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ ] [ ] [XJ 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ J [ J .. [X] b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ] [ J [X] C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations7 [ ]. [ ] [X] 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ] [ J [Xj 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land -use of an area? ....................... [ j [ ] [X] b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ ] [X] S - 4 - YES- MAYBE NO C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning laws? ............................... [ I I I IXI d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ................................. I I [ I IXI b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? ......................... [ l [ l [XI 10. Risk of Upset/Nan-Made Hazards. Will the proposal: a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? .......................... [ I I I [XI b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- ous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ................................ I I I I IXI C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ...................................... I l [ l [XI d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ................................... I I I l [X] 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ..................... [ I [ l [X] b. Other? [ ] [ I [X] 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?. ........................ [ I [ ] (Xj Y b. Other? [ I [ I [X] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X] - 5 - YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ................. [ ] [ ] [XI C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? ............................ [ ] I ] IXI d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .............................. [ ) I 1 IXI e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians2 ....... [ ] [ I IX] £. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. I l I ] IX] 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ........................... I l I I IXI b. Police protection? ......................... [ ) [ ] [X] C. Schools? ................................... [ ) [ 1 IXI d. Parks,or other recreational facilities? .... [ ] [ ] [X] e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ........................... [ ] [ I [X] f. other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ I [X] 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy . .................................... [ ] [ ] IXI b, Substantial increase in.demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development,of new sources of energy? ( ] I ] IX] 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Communications systems? .................... [ j [ ] [XI C. Water systems? ............................. [ ] I 1 IXI d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... I ] [ ] [X] e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X] M-10 a. Will the proposal result in the alteration YES MAYBE NO f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] [ ] [XJ b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or or inefficient pattern of delivery system [ ] [X] C. Does the proposal have.the potential to improvements for any of.the above? ......... [ J [ ] [XJ 17. Human Health. Will the proposalresult in: [ ] [X] d. Will the proposal restrict existing a. Creation of any health hazard or potential religious or sacred uses within the health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... (.] [ ] [X] b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ................................... [ 1 I ] [X1 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any.scenic vista or view open to the public? ................... [ ] [ J [XJ b. Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open.to public view? ....................... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ] [ J [X] 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the.destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .............. [ J [ ] [XJ b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ... [ J [ ] [X] C. Does the proposal have.the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural. values? ............. [ ] [ ] [X] d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ..................... [ ] [ J [X] - ? - C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in part, that if any of the following.can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. YES MAYBE NO 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade • the quality of -the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ................. [ ] [ ] [X] 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long=term impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... [ ] [ ] [X] 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or moreseparate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) .. [ ] [ ] [X] 4. Does.the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ] [ ] [X] D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project involves the expenditure of public funds to acquire the real property and office building located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, and so constitutes only a change.of property ownership, not use. The City has leased office space in the building for municipal/administrative services since mid -1988 and this use will continue. Under the terms of the aquisition,-current leaseholders will not be effected and these existing uses will also continue. No change or expansion of the site's present uses is proposed or anticipated as a -result of this project. - 8 - Based upon the foregoing description and information, the project does not have the potential to adversely effect the enviromnment, and no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of successful implementation. D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [X) Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in this Initial Study have been added to the.project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILLBE PREPARED . .................................... [ ) The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required . ......................................... [ ) LYNN M. HARRIS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA Pre red By: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner 8/9/91 (Signature) (Name/Title) (Date) By: Ronald M. Williams. Senior Planner 8/9/91 (Name/Title) (Date) I L ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MASTER CASE NO.: Case Planner: Project Location: The project site is located along the eastern side of San Fernando Road, east of the railroad right-of-way, approximately between 13th and 16th Streets. Project Description and Setting: The site is approximately 5 acres in size. A portion of the site lies within the 100 - year floodplain of and ephemeral creek (Newhall Creek). The project consists of the construction of a commuter rail station including a station platform approximately 10 feet wide and 425 feet long and parking spaces for 300-500 cars. The station would provide commuters with access to proposed rail service connecting Santa Clarita with downtown Los Angeles. General Plan Designation: RS (SP) Residential Suburban, (Specific Plan Area) Zoning: M1 1/2 (limited heavy industrial) Applicant: Environmental Constraints: Portions of the project site lie within a 100 -year flood plain. The site may contain riparian habitat. Sensitive residential receptors to the east may be affected by project related noise and traffic. A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS YES MAYBE NO 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ( ) ( ) PON The project would require some minor grading, however, the project Is not expected to result In unstable earth conditions or changes in the geologic substructure. 1 YES. MAYBE NO b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcrowding of the soil? (XX)9 ( ) ( ) Development of the proposed project will require some site grading including minor excavation and fill work. However, it Is not anticipated that the grading will result in significant impacts to the soil. c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? (YOM ( ) ( ) Development of the proposed project will require some grading. However, it is not anticipated that the grading will result in significant changes to the overall topography or ground surface relief features within the study area. d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? O O (XXX) No unique geologic or physical features have been Identified at the site and no significant Impacts are anticipated. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? V-109 ( ) ( ) Short-term Increases In wind or water erosion may occur as a result of grading and other construction activity. Temporary Increases in wind and water erosion can be reduced through the use of standard erosion control practices. No significant short- term impacts are anticipated. f. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ( ) PON ( ) The project site is located within two miles of the San Gabriel and Holser faults. Seismic activity along these faults could result in unstable earth conditions at the project site. Further, portions of the project site lie within Newhall Creek and the susceptibility of the area to liquefaction during an earthquake may be high. However, the project, which consists of a commuter rail station platform and a surface parking lot, does not include structures for human occupancy. As a result, the exposure of people and property to geologic hazards is not considered to be significant. g. Changes in deposition, erosion, or siltation? PCX9 () () Short-term Increases in erosion may occur as a result of construction activities. These short-term Increases in erosion can be mitigated through the use of standard erosion control practices. A portion of the site is located within the channel of an ephemeral creek (Newhall Creek). The proposed project may include a structure directly over,the channel. This could result in long-term changes to present erosion, deposition, and siltation patterns. YES MAYBE NO h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? (XXX) ( ) ( ) Development within the channel would require the construction of piers or other support structures. The placement of these structures within the channel may serve to alter the present configuration of the channel and reduce the conveyance capacity of the creek. 1. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more. ( ) (XXX) ( ) Development of the proposed project will require some site grading and fill work. Since the site is predominantly flat anal at an elevation slightly below that of the rail tracks, the amount of earth to be removed is not expected to be significant. However, specific development plans and information on the amount of cut and fill work are not available at this time. j. Development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? { ) ( ) {XXX) The proposed site is not within an Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone. k. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25 % natural grade. ( ) ( ) (XXX) No portion of the proposed site has a slope of over twenty-five percent. I. Other? No other impacts to soils are anticipated. 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ( ) ( ) (ten Dust and construction equipment exhaust fumes would be generated during construction activities. , However, construction dust can be mitigated through the implementation of standard grading practices. No significant long-term air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality is anticipated. Operation of the proposed , commuter rail station would generate additional motor vehicle traffic in the vicinity; however, the localized air quality impacts are not expected to be significant. In addition, the project would provide commuters with access to rail transit service connecting Santa Clarita with downtown Los Angeles. By providing commuters with an alternative mode of transportation to the automobile, the proposed project in - conjunction with the commuter rail project could reduce vehicle miles traveled and have a beneficial Impact on regional air quality. 3 b. The creation of objectionable odors? YES MAYBE NO ( ) (YM ( ) Construction of the proposed project would generate incidental, short-term increases in dust -and exhaust emissions. Exhaust emissions in particular may be considered an objectionable odor and may affect the residences to the east of the project site. These potential impacts would be of short duration and would not result in long-term significant impacts. c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? ( ) ( ) (XXX) The nature and limited size of the project are not sufficient to alter the existing meteorological or climatological conditions. No significant impacts are anticipated. d. Other? ( ) ( ) (XXX) No other impacts to air quality are anticipated. 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? PON ( ) ( ) The project site is currently undeveloped. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the creation of new impervious surfaces (300-500 car parking lot, vehicle entrances and exits, station platform), and may result in an alteration of existing natural drainage at the site. This alteration could result in an increase In the rate and amount of surface run-off and changes in absorption rates. b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ( ) PN ( ) A portion of the proposed site extends within the channel ofNewhallCreek. Development within the channel may Interfere with the course or flow of flood waters. c. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? () O M There are no permanent surface water bodies located at the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated.. d. Discharge into surface water, or in any alter- ation of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity. ( ) ( ) (XX)) See response to comment number 3.c. above. No significant Impacts are anticipated. 4 { Y .MAYBE NO e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ( ) (XXX) ( ) Because of the proximity of the site to Newhall Creek, Placerita Creek, and the Santa Clara River, it is possible that groundwater is present at the site. Construction of piers or other support structures in the creek channel could Intrude into the groundwater table. The affect on the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters is not expected to be significant. I. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ( ) () (XXX) The project would not result in additions or withdrawals of groundwater. above. g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) { ) (X)O) The proposed project Is not of the size or nature to reduce the amount of water available for public use. Water use would be restricted to landscape irrigation. h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) (XXX) ( ) Portions of the proposed site lie within the 100 -year floodplain of Newhall Creek (National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map, Los Angeles County panel 460 B). It is possible that people and property could be exposed to flood related hazards at the project site. However, the project does not include any structures for human occupancy that could pose a significant risk to persons in the event of a flood. i. Other? ( ) ( ) (XXX) No other impacts in this category are anticipated. 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops and aquatic plants)? ( ) (XXX) ( ) The project site is largely undeveloped and native species do remain. Further, portions of the site extend within the channel of Newhall Creek which may contain valuable riparian habitat. Site preparation will require the removal of existing vegetation and could result in a change of species diversity or the number of a species. No significant impact is anticipated due to the relatively limited scope of the project; however, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base is recommended. 5 YES MAYBE NO b: Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ( ) PON ( ) Much of the project site is vacant undeveloped land. A portion of the site also extends into Newhall Creek. This area may provide habitat for a unique, rare, or endangered species of plant. Further investigation should be conducted to determine the level and significance of potential impacts. c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or is a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? () () (XXX) Neither the construction nor the operation of the proposed facility would introduce new species of plants into the area. Further, the project would not act as a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species. d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ( ) ( ) PON No agricultural land exists on the project site. 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? ( ) (XXX) ( ) The project site is largely undeveloped and native species do remain. Further, portions of the siteextendwithin the channel of Newhall Creek which may contain riparian habitat and species. Site preparation will require the removal of existing vegetation and could result in a change of species diversity or the number of a species. No significant impacts are anticipated due to the relatively limited scope of the project, however, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base is recommended. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique; rare or endangered species of animals? ( ) 0009 ( ) A portion of the site extends into an undeveloped portion of Newhall Creek. This area may provide habitat for a unique, rare or endangered species of animal. Further Investigation should be conducted to determine the level and significance of any potential impacts. 1.1 YES MAYBE' NO C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ( ) ( ) (XXX) Neither the construction nor the operation of the proposed facility is expected to introduce new species of animals into the area or act as a barrier to the migration or movement of animals. d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? () C)C<X) () The development of the proposed project may result in the loss of existing wildlife habitat at the site. Additional study should be undertaken to determine the level and significance of the potential impacts. 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: 7 a. Increases in existing.noise levels? (XXX) () () Operation of a commuter rail station with parking for 300 to 500 cars will generate additional traffic In the area which could increase ambient noise levels. Noise -sensitive residential uses located immediately southeast of the proposed project site could be affected by traffic noise. However, the increase in noise levels due to increased traffic is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on nearby sensitive land uses. b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? Construction and operation of the project is not expected to expose people to severe or unacceptable noise levels. c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? Neither the construction nor the operation of the proposed commuter rail station would create severe vibrations. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal: a. Produce substantial new light or glare? The project site is largely undeveloped. As a result, parking lot illumination and station lights will create a new source of light In the project area which may intrude into adjacent sensitive land uses. However, this impact is not expected to be significant and can be mitigated with light fixtures which are designed and located to minimize the amount of light transmitted off-site. 7 YES MAYBE NO 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result In an alteration of the present land use of an area? (X)CX) ( ) ( ) The project site is a largely undeveloped industrial site. Some commercial and Industrial uses are located immediately west of the railroad right-of-way. Residential uses are located southeast of the project site. Development of the proposed project will result in the alteration of the present land use from vacant industrial to public/institutional. b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ( ) ( ) (XXX) Development of the commuter rail station at the proposed site would be consistent with the provisions of the Draft General Plan. C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning laws? () () (Y -XX) Existing zoning at the proposed site is M1 1/2 (limited heavy industrial). A commuter rail station is allowed in this zone. d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ( } ( ) (XXX) The proposed station is consistent with established zoning and complies with the provisions of the Draft General Plan. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ( ) ( ) PON Development of the proposed project would result in only an incremental increase in the use of natural resources. These Increases are not expected to be substantial in relation to Increases normally associated with similar development. No significant impacts are anticipated. b. Depletion of any non-renewable resources? ( ) ( ) PON See the response to question number 9.a. above. 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? ( ) () (XXX) 8 YES MAYBE NO The proposed project does not Include any generators, collectors, or transporters of hazardous substances. No significant impacts are anticipated. b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (XXL See the response to question number 10.a. above. c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) PN The emergency response plan for the City of Santa Clarita has not yet been adopted. However, it is not anticipated that operation of the proposed commuter rail station would interfere with any proposed plans. d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ( ) (XXX) ( ) People may be exposed to potential safety hazards on site including seismic hazard, potential soil contamination from surrounding land uses, and potential flood hazard. These hazards are not expected to pose significant risks, however, further investigation may be required to determine the level and significance of these potential impacts. 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ( ) (XXX) ( ) Implementation of the proposed project will introduce new human activity on the site, and may represent a growth Inducing impact on other undeveloped properties in the vicinity. By providing station access to a commuter rail transit line connecting Santa Clarita with downtown Los Angeles, the project may attract additional population to the area. However, the growth -inducing Impact of the project is not expected to result in a significant increase in the population growth rate. b. Other? ( ) ( ) (XXX) No other Impacts are anticipated in this category. 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? ( ) (XXX) ( ) The proposed project may attract additional population to the region. This potential increase In population would result In a demand for additional housing in the area. However, this demand for new housing Is not expected to be significant. 0 b. Other? No other impacts in this category are anticipated. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? YES MAYBE NO ( ) ( ) (1009 (XXX) () ( 1 The proposed project, which Includes a station platform and parking for 300 to 500 cars, would provide access to a commuter rail line connecting Santa Clarita with downtown Los Angeles. As a result, the project will generate additional vehicle trips in the area which could have Impacts on the Level of Service at local intersections. Although this impact is not expected to be significant, further study may be required. The project may have a beneficial impact on region -wide congestion by providing commuters with access to an alternative mode of transportation to the automobile. b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demands for new parking? ( ) ( ) (XXX) The proposed project calls for the development of 300-500 parking spaces, which is expected to be sufficient to meet demand. c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? The proposed project has the potential to Increase vehicular traffic on surrounding surface streets: However, the project may have a beneficial Impact on region -wide congestion. d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? (XXX) ( ) ( ) See the responses to 13.a. and 13.c. above. e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ( ) (XXX) ( ) Implementation of the proposed project would result In additional vehicular traffic in the area, create new curb cuts, parking areas, and possible pedestrian crossings, all of which are potential traffic conflict points. However, with proper signage and signals, the Increased risk of traffic hazards is not expected to be significant. f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? ( ) ( ) ()C0Q Project development would coordinate and complement existing circulation systems. No significant impact is anticipated. 10 YES MAYBE NO 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? (. ) (XXX) ( ) The project site is largely undeveloped. Development of a station and parking may result in a minor insignificant need for new or altered fire protection services. The additional population which may be attracted to the area as a result of the project is not expected to result in a significant need for new services. b. Police protection? ( ) (XXX) ( ) Some police surveillance of the proposed parking lot may be necessary for security reasons. A significant need for new police services is not anticipated. However, the project may attract additional population to the area. The potential increase in population is not expected to result in a significant need for new services. c. Schools? ( ) (XXX) ( ) The project will not include housing or provide permanent employment. Additional school facilities, personnel and equipment will not be required as a direct result of the project. However, the project may attract additional population to the area. The potential increase in population is not expected to result in a significant need for new services. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) (XXX) ( ) The project is not expected to result in a need for new services or altered services. However, the project may attract additional population to the area. The potential increase in population is not expected to result in a significant need for new services. e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? . (XJN ( ) ( ) The city will be responsible for maintaining the commuter rail station facility. This Impact is not expected to be significant. f. Other government services? ( ) ( ) NN No significant Impacts to other government services are anticipated. 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of exceptional amounts of fuel or energy? ( ) ( ) PON Development of the proposed project would result in only an incremental increase In the use of natural resources. These increases are not expected to be substantial in 11 YES MAYBE NO relation to increases normally associated with similar development. No significant impacts are anticipated. b. Significant increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy? ( ) ( ) ()OCA See the response to question number 15.a. above. 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? (.) PON ( ) The project site is largely vacant. Some alteration to the existing systems may be required to accommodate the proposed project. No significant impacts are anticipated. b. Communications systems? ( ) (XXX) ( ) The project site is largely vacant. Some alteration to the existing systems may be required to accommodate the proposed project. No significant impacts are anticipated. c. Water? ( ) 0009 ( ) The project site is largely vacant. Some alteration to the existing systems may be required to accommodate the proposed project._ No significant impacts are anticipated. d. Sanitary sewer systems? ( ) ( ) P009 The project will not generate wastewater which could affect the local sewer system. e. Storm drainage systems? ( ) (XXX) ( ) Because of the elevation of the site and the location in a 100 -year floodplain, a new storm drainage system may be required for the project site. f. Solid waste disposal systems? ( ) ( ) PON The project will generate minor or insignificant amounts of solid waste. g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of delivery system improvements for any of the above? () () (XXX) Development of the proposed project would not result In a disjointed or Inefficient pattern of improvements. 12 —YES -MAYBE NO 17. HUMAN HEALTH Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ( ) ( ) (XXY) Project implementation will not result In the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. No significant Impact Is anticipated. b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? The site may contain soil contaminated by adjacent land uses. Although the potential for exposure of persons to health hazards due to potential soil contamination is not expected to be significant, some further study may be required to determine the level and significance of the potential impacts. 1B. AESTHETICS. Will the proposed project result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ( ) ( ) (XXX) The project site is open to public view, however, the proposed project will not obstruct any existing scenic vista or view. No significant impacts are anticipated. b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to. public view? O O (xx)� The project will develop a site that is mostly vacant for a commuter rail station with parking for 300 to 500 cars. The station and parking lot will include landscaping to mitigate potential visual impacts due to loss of existing vegetation. c. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? ( ) ( ) (XXX) See response to question number 18.a. above. 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ( ) . WN ( ) Since the project has the potential to be growth Inducing, it is possible that existing recreational opportunities may be affected. No significant Impact is anticipated. 13 YES MAYBE NO 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? ( ) (XXX) ( ) The project site Is largely vacant. Some commercial and industrial uses are located immediately west of the railroad right-of-way. A preliminary field review indicates no evidence of significant cultural or historic resources at the site, however, other sites in the area have yielded some limited archaeologic resources. Although no significant impacts are anticipated, additional study and information may be required to determine the level and significance of any potential impacts. b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? ( ) QOOC) ( ) See response to comment number 20.a. above. c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) { ) (XXX) No known ethnic, cultural, or religious values are associated with the site. No significant impacts are anticipated. d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) (XXX) See response to question number 20.c. above. 14 YES MAYBE NO B. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) (XXX) ( ) A portion of the project site is located within the channel of Newhall Creek. It is possible that development of the proposed project could reduce or degrade existing wildlife habitat or reduce or eliminate a plant or animal community from the area. Further study should be undertaken to determine the precise nature of the potential impacts. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? ( ) ( ) (XXX) The purpose of the project is to improve commuter traffic conditions over the long term and as such would have a beneficial impact insofar as this category is concerned. c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (Incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) (XX)9 The proposed project should have a cumulatively beneficial effect d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) (XXX) A portion of the project may extend within the 700 -year floodplain of Newhall Creek. However, the project does not include any structures for human occupancy.Therefore, the potential impacts from flooding to persons and property are not expected to be significant is C. DETERMINATION On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that: ( ) The proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ( Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in this Initial Study have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ( ) The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. LYNN M. HARRIS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA Prepared By: /14 TtS 16